JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (ORAL) THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (substituted now) (for short “the Act”) has been filed on 18.09.2020 by the Petitioner Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation challenging the order dated 30.11.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.203 of 2017 filed by the Complainant wherein the Petitioner had participated.  Since the present Revision Petition is delayed by 568 days, an IA No.6021 of 2020 seeking condonation of delay has been filed.

          IA 6021 of 2020 (condonation of delay)

1.      Arguments heard on this application.  My findings on this IA are as under:

2.      In paragraph 2 of the application, the Petitioner has submitted that the delay of 568 days had occurred due to the strike in the department which led to the delay in bringing the records to Delhi.  Further, the Petitioner was unable to collect the documents from the Counsel who had ceased to be on the panel of the Petitioner.  Thereafter, there was delay in getting the translation of the documents done as the translator had become an Advocate and hence, it was difficult to contact him.  It is submitted that the file was prepared but by the time it was taken to the court, the courts were closed due to Covid-19.  It is contended that the office of the counsel was sealed due to acute infection of Covid-19 in the area.  It is also submitted that the file was to be remade.  On the above contentions, it is submitted that the delay was unintentional, inadvertent and beyond the control of the Petitioner and therefore, the delay in filing of the Revision Petition be condoned.

3.      Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued on aforementioned lines.

4.      I have perused the application.  The two reasons have been given for condonation of delay.  The first reason is that the file was prepared but it could not be submitted in the courts on account of closure of the courts due to Covid-19 and the file was needed to be re-prepared and finally, it could be filed only on 18.09.2020.  It is apparent that the lockdown due to Covid-19 was declared around 15.03.2020.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 has held that the delay w.e.f. 15.03.2020 should be suspended.  Since the Revision Petition has been filed on 18.09.2020, the Petitioner is entitled for condonation of delay of six months, i.e. 180 days approximately, in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  When I take out 180 days from 568 days, the delay comes to about 388 days.  The Petitioner needs to explain the reasons for condonation of this delay of 388 days.  The reasons seeking condonation of delay should be of such a nature which had prevented the Petitioner from filing the Revision Petition on time and which were beyond the control and that even after taking reasonable care and diligence, the Petition could not have been filed within the period of limitation.

5.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” has held that the condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the courts can exercise its discretion to condone the delay only where sufficient reasons are shown.  The Apex Court has held as under:

  “12. It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a pa